1 Birch v. Depeyster, 4 Camp. 385; Johnston v. Usborne, 11 Ad. & El. 549; Phil. & Amos on Evid. 738, 739 (edit. 1838).

2 Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 446, 447. See also 8. c. 1 Nev. & Man. 316, note; Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camp. 203; Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B. & C. 915; Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B. & Al. 333; Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. & J. 389; Cleaves v. Foss, 4 Greenl. 1; Jenkins v. Hogg, 2 Const. 821; Gordon v. Sims, 2 M'Cord, Ch. 164. But he cannot bind the buyer, unless the memorandum be made on the day of the sale. Mews v. Carr, 1 H. & N. 484 (1856).

3 Bartlett v. Purnell, 4 Ad. & El. 793, 794.

4 Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camp. 203; Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B. & Al. 333; Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. & J. 389.

5 Bird v. Boulter, 4 B. & Ad. 446, 447. 6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.; Farebrother v. Simmons, 5 B. & Al. 333; Wright v. Dannah, 2 Camp. 203; Sewall v. Fitch, 8 Cow. 215.

§ 426. In respect to the first exception in the statute, namely, that the buyer shall "accept a part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same," the rule is, that a final surrender by the seller, and a complete appropriation by the buyer of the whole of the goods, or in the case of an entire contract, of a part of the goods, in process of receiving the whole, are required to satisfy the statute. No such surrender can be final within the meaning of this exception, so long as the seller retains any right of lien, or of stoppage in transitu; and no appropriation can be complete, so long as the buyer is at liberty to return the goods, in case they do not correspond to the warranty. The delivery must not only be sufficient to transfer the title, but also to destroy the rights of the vendor over the specific subject-matter, in virtue of the old agreement.3 And, therefore, a delivery to any person, who is a mere middle-man, in whose hands the goods are subject to any control by the vendor, is not sufficient.4 The delivery of part of the goods sold under an entire contract is sufficient.5

1 Henderson v. Barnewall, 1 Y. & J. 389; Alna v. Plummer, 4 Greenl. 258.

2 Tull v. David, 45 Mo. 444 (1870); Bent v. Cobb, 9 Gray, 397 (1857).

3 See ante, § 276 to 281; Rohde v. Thwaites, 6 B. & C. 388; s. c. 9 Dowl. & Ryl. 293; Baldey v. Parker, 2 B. & C. 37; Phillips v. Bistolli, 2 B. & C. 513; Smith v. Surman, 9 B. & C. 561; Carter v. Toussaint, 5 B. & Al. 858; Kent v. Huskinson, 3 Bos. & Pul..233; Hanson v. Armitage, 5 B. & Al. 557; Miles v. Gorton, 2 Cr. & Mees. 504; Townley v. Crump, 5 Nev. & Man. 608; 8. c. 4 Ad. & El. 58; Winks v. Hassall, 9 B. & C. 375; Bloxam v. Sanders, 4 B. & C. 941.

4 Astey v. Emery, 4 M. & S. 264; Hanson v. Armitage, 5 B. & Al. 559; Howe v. Palmer, 3 B. & Al. 321.

5 Mills v. Hunt, 17 Wend! 333; s. c. 20 Wend. 431; Coffman v. Hampton, 2 Watts & Serg. 377.